Tag Archives: nationalist

As American nationalists we share several ideas with the libertarians and other constitutionalist conservatives, such as the right to private property, national independence and the support of free-market capitalism.

However there are some elements that differentiate nationalists from conservatives and libertarians, namely that nationalists see government as a means to an end and not as the end itself. Also, nationalists recognize the importance of nation and patriotism more so than libertarians and conservatives.

In the same vein as my post on candidate Gary Johnson, who is more of a demagogue than a true libertarian but whatever, here is a few major criticisms most nationalists agree with and that concern libertarians mostly, but also conservatives to a degree.

Just when you thought that the so-called liberals and their supporters ought to shut up, here they are trying to get attention and occupy wall street the media scene with the same old joke : the 9/11 conspiracy.

One could wonder why this event, which happened over ten years ago, still holds such an importance as of today but regardless.

It seems like the ethnomasochist wave generally accompanying Ron Paul’s campaigns has payed off and carried on to other candidates.

But seriously now, we really are lucky to have such insightful people to govern us.

C’mon of course it’s a conspiracy… the foreign attacking us ? The foreign hating America ? Impossible. That just doesn’t fit the ethnomasochist propaganda promoted by the mass media.

It can’t be the foreign, it just has to bey Americans. PHEW ! We were lucky, for a little while we were about to admit that foreigners could cause harm to the USA… unimaginable ! And utterly intolerant.

It’s also quite funny to notice that these conspiracy theories only arise when the United States of America are implied.

Why are the no conspiracy theories for the Holocaust for example ? For the Armenian genocide ? For Fukushima ?

Among the 2012 presidential debates that spread quickly and increasingly over this country, quite a few yet not as much as expected concern the economic situation of the United States of America.
Strangely enough, these same economic debates will have been characterized by two essentials elements : the overly pronounced taste for globalism of our candidates and the complete absence of solutions concerning the trade deficit.

For the first one, no real surprise you don’t step out of five decades of blatant ethnomasochism as easily. For the second characteristic on the other hand, even though I half expected it I must say I am nevertheless taken aback by the stupid of those who desire to govern us.

On the economic table,you might have witnessed a few lonely tirades about the public spending, and even less numerous interventions about the unemployment, which Ron Paul blames on the… FED. How original.

I truly have a hard time seeing how monetary creation, if that’s what Ron Paul reproaches to the FED in the first place, leads to unemployment since on the contrary, in the short term monetary creation will bring devaluation of the currency, and lead to more exports. It’s only in the long term that monetary creation can show its perverse effects, more on that later.

But aside from Ron Paul’s usual ramble, very few mentions to our current economic situation have been noticeable, like for example our record high trade deficit. It’s also funny to notice that we barely use the term “trade balance” anymore, only “trade deficit” implying that our balance couldn’t be positive.

Only once again, and if you dispose of whatever political experience or plainly common sense you may already have noticed, purposely ignoring an issue won’t make it fix itself. We’ve had proof for the public debt, the ethnomasochism, the anti-Americanism and countless other political experiments.

The truth about the trade deficit in America

Every candidate talks openly about such concepts as wealth redistribution and common wealth, but what they seemingly fail to notice is that to have any wealth to distribute you have to produce it first. And as we fail to produce any wealth, actually we lose some each day hence the term trade deficit, our economic system is only feeding on a smaller and smaller piece of cake : our past gains.

The only companies actually bringing money into the USA are the very old ones, often times the ones labelled as corporations by the mass media, and they are also believe or not the most taxed entities in this country.

But taxing our big companies is not and was never enough for our economic system not to collapse under the weight of the drag that is our American Business Model.

To substitute to our nonexistent and even hugely deficient production of wealth, there are three solutions.
1. Tax money
2. Print money
3. Borrow money

Needless to say that our government is applying all three of these, and rather ineffectively.

But don’t forget that Americans are sheep, and whole common wealth system is designed against them. In the long run that is.

The system is designed by essence for the supply to meet the demand by all needs necessary, disregarding our sovereignty and our long term national interests (the liberals always talk about collective interest, but what is more collective than our own nation I demand).

Americans are such sheep that as long as the supply meets the demand, or in this case the demands, they won’t protest. They all want the “miracle pill” to solve all our problems, and that’s exactly why charlatans such as Ron Paul can rise effortlessly on top of all political polls.
Americans aren’t lucid at all when it comes to political and economical decisions, and these democratic debates often turn out to be one way overbidding schemes.

– We aren’t producing enough wealth and bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just tax the rich and the companies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

– We can’t tax the rich anymore but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just borrow our money with massive interest rates from other countries, most of which openly consider themselves our enemies. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

– We can’t borrow anymore money but still aren’t bringing enough money in our country ? We can either change our ways and adopt a more patriotic form of citizenship, or we can just print more money disregarding the issues linked to devaluation. The latter solution is easier, more demagogic and by the time the consequences will arise there will be a new president in the office to put the blame on.

The candidate Ron Paul and several other conservatives have strongly opposed the concept of monetary creation, at least indirectly, and the “FED system”. Unsurprisingly, none of them has ever brought up the consequences of ending a system on which our whole economy is now dependent.

And for once in the history of the United States of Demagogy, there is a possibility that the supply won’t meet the demand, simply because there is no more supply. There are no more fake issues, “miracle pills”, Jesus-is-our-savior-he-will-fix-our-economy-vote-Santorum-2012, nonviable settlements, wrong answers and non-solutions to disconnect the American people from the market.
Our politicians believed they could just ignore the reality of economic war and the market altogether, but they are only just starting to see the consequences of fifty decades of internationalism and ethnomasochism.

After fifty years of denial, obscurantism, anti-racist propaganda and thousands of mild alcoholic drinks and other expensive cocktails exchanged by useless politicians, some of our media finally start to accept the facts : there is anti-Americanism, even in the United States of America.

Furthermore, many studies published by diverse media source now confirmed a well eluded fact : anti-Americanism is more present in immigrants than in strain Americans.
Example : Nearly 70 percent of Mexican-Americans – including those born in the United States – owe their primary loyalty to Mexico, not the U.S., according to a poll commissioned by the Center for Immigration Studies. No shit Sherlock.

The same studies many other groups of population all possessing at least two nationalities, or at least coming from a progeny of fairly recent immigrants show similar results.

Of course, such publications drew immediate and highly voiced criticism from many anti-racist organizations. You know, the ones that believe one American shooting a Muslim is a hate crime but terrorist attacks killing three thousand Americans is of course, not.
Note that these so-called anti-racist organizations reacted not initial study nor to the fact that 70% of Mexican consider themselves anti-American, but to the publication of this data. We already knew that left-wing extremists had a hard time with reality.

Now these studies lead to a primary question : is immigration responsible for anti-Americanism ? Are immigrants less prone to patriotism than strain citizens ?

As always we shall base our opinion on factual data and not some left-wing fabricated media-whoring to determine the best answer. It helps to actually have a brain when studying sociology (take notes Ron Paul).

Many nationalists seem to believe that to maintain an adequate level of patriotism, immigration should be restricted to very strict circumstances, or even banned altogether.
If it’s been proven that a vast majority of immigrants are far from maintaining an adequate level of patriotism in the USA, does that mean all immigration everywhere is as bad, or are these consequences simply a result of a much deeper problem strongly linked to our ethnomasochistic political decisions ? You may already know the answer.

Take most European countries for example, or Asian countries (Korea, Japan, India, China…). Having much less freedom to express their cultures, sometimes even leading judicial persecution (in some of these countries the mere fact of displaying a foreign flag is against the law), and facing much much more anti-immigration and ethnocentrism than in the USA, you would tend to believe that the immigrants would be even less adherent to their new nation right ?

Once again, the simplistic, fantasist and somewhat delusional views of Ron Paul and other liberal hypocrites don’t exactly coincide with the reality of factual evidence.

It’s been proven that in ethnocentric and patriotic nations, immigrants tend to try their best to fit into their new culture. On the other hand, in a country like the United States of America which lacks ethnocentrism like no other, immigrants will of course be unpatriotic.

What chance do you have for an immigrant to become patriotic when the country which is receiving him automatically places himself in the seller position (ethnomasochism) instead of the buyer position (ethnocentrism) ?

What chance do you have for someone that immigrates say from Mexico to the USA to be patriotic when all he sees from the strain Americans, including the media, is ethnomasochism and anti-Americanism ?

On a side note, I’m not trying to sound like a left-wing hippie at all and furthermore I believe that all immigrants committing offenses or unpatriotic acts should be deported and dispossessed, as in every other country in the world.
The goal of this article is not to provide yet another hippie ethnomasochist alter-dicksucker globalist view on immigration, but to clarify the correlation between immigration and anti-Americanism.

About every four years a very particular and intriguing event is held somewhere in the United States of America Demagogy, and many signs show that this year’s event will be at least as lame as every other year.

Similarly to how other countries elect representatives to govern them and act in their best interest, we in the United States of America Demagogy elect notorious globalists and demagogues to govern us, and act against our national interest.

You would be thinking that with the economic crisis that touches our country more then any other, with nationalist movements rising more than ever in Europe and every other country, with the disastrous results of half a decade of ethnomasochism and globalism, Americans would start to wake up and demand that their government start working in the national interest.

But apparently Americans are more concerned with gay rights, birth control pills and the legalization of marijuana.

These same Americans don’t seem to notice that they will soon experience a very painful blowback to use Ron Paul’s favorite term, once the Fed stops printing money. The errors of half a decade of ethnomasochistic governing and foreignism won’t be repaired with yet another bailout, and the consequences that Americans are starting to see are only the tip of the iceberg.

It was pretty funny last year to watch the Occupy Wall Street movement, yet another blatant excuse for anti-Americanism promoted by our ethnomasochistic media, because of the wide ignorance of the protesters.

Not only were they proposing even more international socialism to resolve problems created by international socialism, but really if they think our economic situation now is difficult, wait and see how it will be when the Europeans or the Russian take us over.

And no, there won’t be a massive bailout to magically solve our decades of trade-deficit, debt accumulation and other consequences to our anti-American globalist actions.

Even Ron Paul’s policies to cut government spending are widely insufficient at best, on the wrong track at worst.
As much as we need government spending’s limited, that alone won’t solve most of our problems. Germany, China, India, Denmark, France, Sweden Russia and most of the globe all have economies that are a lot more government depended than us (59% of GDP for Denmark, 56% for France) and their economy is in better shape than ours.

In 2008, we had to choose between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea, but trust me in 2012 we will have both.

As long as American interests aren’t the top and only priority of the voters, you might as well keep Obama and his current administration because no candidate is projecting much change in our ideology.

And apparently, seeing the possible candidates for the 2012 elections, the public opinion hasn’t evolved one bit despite the economic crisis of 2012.

As for me, once again I will not vote for anyone.

I was considered voting Ron Paul earlier this year but seriously it’s not even worth the effort, and I wouldn’t want to encourage the globalist system with my vote.

As long as we won’t have American elections, based on American interests and not demagogy, voting will be as useless here as in central Africa.

When we refer to nationalism in the United States of America, there is always a considerable amount of confusion about the meanings of this term.

Does it designate patriotism ? A more advanced form of patriotism ?
Is it left-wing or right-wing ? Is it conservative, liberal or socialist ?

Is nationalism like communism ? Is it authoritarian ? Totalitarian ? An autocracy ?
Does it consider the state or government above all individuals ? Is it collectivist ?
Is it white-pride groups that openly promote their love for the German (Nazi) flag ?
Is a national socialism an oxymoron ? How about national libertarianism or national anarchism ?

Of course and as always, the mass media backed by the global agenda is to blame for this intentional confusion around the real meaning of nationalism.

In no other country in the world are nationalism and patriotism so stigmatized as in the USA, and in no other country in the world are these terms intentionally stripped of their meanings by ethno-masochistic propaganda and mass media obscurantism either.

Nationalism as an ideology, not a political regime

Nationalism is not a political movement. Nationalism is not a political regime. Nationalism is not a political system. Nationalism is not a political doctrine.

Despite these facts, many still misinterpret nationalism as an opposition to “classical” liberalism or socialism.
Nationalism, and to a lesser extend fascism, are ideologies. The fact that they are exclusively associated with the political scene is a common misconception.

Socialism, liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, populism, authoritarianism, and the list goes on… are all political systems, as they can be adopted and adjusted to fit any particular view.
This explains how you can have national socialism (Nazi Germany, Modern Germany and most European countries), international socialism (Obama), even more ethnomasochistic international socialism (California), religion oriented socialism (Pakistan, Iran and Islamic countries in general), ecological oriented socialism (Green Party), racial separation oriented socialism (American Nazi Party), faggotry oriented socialism (Occupy Wall Street). The same goes for every other political movement quoted above.

A political system is define by the way the government, and the other branches of power (executive, legislative, judicial), organizes society.
No room for an ideology here. Welfare and wealth redistribution will have different meanings and justifications whether done in the USA or in Nazi Germany.

Understanding this issue grants one to comprehend better the incoherence of considering candidates such as Ron Paul or previously Barack Obama like “saviors”.
In both cases, the mass media has attempted to build these candidates into “providential men”. The pattern is very simple :
1. There is a problem (alternatively and more realistically, there are many problems).
2. These people have the ultimate magic-pill solution that will magically fix everything. The change !
3. Of course the big evil republicans/racists/government/bankers/traders/homosexuals/conservatives/power-rangers/corporations (insert the traditional scapegoat for every problem) are against them.

Disregarding the factual evidence that these candidates are proposing the exacts same solutions to the exact same problems we encountered for now more than fifty years, the mass media will try to build them as anti-system, or anti-establishment candidates.

I shouldn’t say the exact same solutions, because politically these candidates differ greatly especially when comparing Ron Paul to Barack Obama, but the exact same ideology : ethnomasochism and cult of the foreign.

Whether it’s Obama mourning about Guantanamo or the behavior of American soldiers overseas, or Ron Paul whining about American “bullying” the “rest of the world”, disregarding the evidence of European colonization of our culture and European imperialism, they both follow the same traced route of global solutions to typically American issues.

American problems are ideological not political

The major problems with the United States of America aren’t political, they are ideological. (well arguably Obama added some political problems over the top, but you get the idea)

These are the same ideological issue we faced now for over fifty years, and even more than that !

From the very first day Americans started neglecting their own culture for the foreign, from the very first day they started trading American interests for the global agenda, from the very first day Americans became ashamed of anything relating to American culture, we were bound to face the issues we face today (trade deficit, no national identity, communitarianism, anti-Americanism, de-localizations).

We have now been facing the same problems for fifty years, and we are still trying to provide the same solutions. As Einstein stated :

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

And I’m not criticizing any particular political system, although I am doubtful of the effectiveness of Obama’s economic policies, I’m simply stating that we can’t fix ideological issues with political solutions.

Our trade deficit is growing each year, the foreign interests are the top concerns of our citizens, the unemployment rate is higher than ever, the foreign are colonizing more and more of our nation, our industry is facing massive de-localization, the share of American companies profiting from our daily consumptions are diminishing year by year, and so is the share of products made in the USA.

The media is ignoring most of the real issues, and while our enemies have for the past century gathered more and more around nationalism, we have gone in the opposite direction : ethnomasochism.

Ten years after the Holocaust and a nationalist party was already reformed in Germany, while in the USA there is no nationalism to be found. Neither in the government, nor in the opposition.

When will the Americans understand that switching from ethnomasochistic socialism to ethnomasochistic libertarianism won’t solve our majors problems, the same way switching from a red square to a green square won’t make it fit in the circle hole.

Nationalism must become once again an ideology, not a political opinion, and be at the center of our decision making, whether from the government or the citizens.

The “blowback” is the new fancy term coined by no other than Ron Paul to describe, rationalize or even justify blatant anti-Americanism from other countries. Once again, coming from Ron Paul, this concept is very idealistic, biased and with no anchor whatsoever in reality.

According to Ron Paul, if there is anti-Americanism in the world, it’s because America assaulted the “world” first and they are just defending themselves. It’s a very simplistic way of define these issues, and I’m sure that it fits perfectly the ethnomasochist mindset of most of our media.

To explain this concept he takes the examples of war in the middle-east. Not only does he blames our “preemptive” wars for the terrorist acts against America, but he even justifies them.
Obviously this is completely wrong, and the main reason of anti-Americanism in the world is that Americans adopted ethnomasochist views and rejected nationalism.

The same goes for immigration. In countries with strong national identity, the immigrants do everything they can to fit in, communitarianism only builds in ethnomasochist countries.

To get back to Ron Paul’s example of “blowback”, if what he was saying was true, how come the United States are the only ones touched by this “blowback” ?
Compared to some European countries, our intervention in the middle-east was fairly clean : no assaults on civilians, no lootings… Why is there no blowback for the Europeans ?

Does Ron Paul know anything about Al Qaeda ? They are said to target countries that oppose the charia laws.
But if that was really the case, why didn’t they target European countries who are much more islamophobic that the USA ? In the USA there is religious freedom, even the extremist Muslims can build mosques, wear religion symbols, not be discriminated by the judicial system due to their ethnics, and even burn American flags without being persecuted.

Moreover, the Wehrmacht and the Red Army have done much worse than the USA in eastern Europe, so why wasn’t there any blowback for them ?